TRAMES, 2008, 12(62/57), 3, 309–318 STEREOTYPES AND CULTURAL MEMORY: ADAPTATIONS OF OSKAR LUTS’S SPRING IN THEATRE AND FILM Anneli Saro University of Tartu Abstract. The article is focused on stereotypes as cognitive phenomena, as well as on cultural mechanisms of representation and memorization, by studying their formation, petrifaction and decomposition more broadly in culture, and more specifically in theatre and film. For an empirical example, I draw on the Estonian novel Spring by Oskar Luts, and on its adaptations in theatre and film. Theatre as an art form is constituted by two specific conditions: firstly by a performance, which is connected with the performer’s body; and secondly by the presence of the spectator. In the performative arts, artefacts lack a material carrier; the primary carrier of a production is human memory. Theatre can thus be considered an art of memory – an art of remembering, recalling, reminiscing and reiterating. Such repetitions give rise to phenomena which can be called stereotypes. Performances function as special storehouses and recreational tools of stereotype and identity, simultaneously reinforcing and challenging personal and collective memories. DOI: 10.3176/tr.2008.3.06 Keywords: cultural memory, stereotypes, theatre, cult films, Oskar Luts 1. Introduction Stereotypes as social phenomena gain their power from everyday practice, social agreement, and tradition. Usually they have a lengthy historical background that gives the power of perpetual validity to symbolic and speech acts that are performed using stereotypes (see e.g. McConachie 1992). To attain a deeper level of generality, stereotypes must be explicitly or implicitly shared by an entire community. And the bigger is the community, the bigger the legitimacy of the figure. Both theatre and film provide stages for acts of collective commemoration, actors do so by embodying characters and performing stories and audience by perceiving and remembering them. Whereas films, once recorded, become part of 310 Anneli Saro the stable archive of collective memory, theatre as a series of embodied acts lacks preservable material artefacts. The primary carrier of a production is human memory: the memory of both the performers and the spectators. Thus, theatre can be considered an art of memory – an art of remembering, recalling, reminiscing and reiterating. In his book The Haunted Stage (2003), theatre researcher Marvin Carlson draws our attention to theatre’s reiterative and preservative nature. According to Carlson, reiteration in theatre proceeds on at least four levels: spatial (theatre buildings), dramaturgic (plays), material (primarily actors) and the level of reception. Such repetitions also give rise to phenomena which we call stereotypes. Theatre buildings simply frame performances, although the stage in itself - unlike airplane black boxes or the many other places that function as memory banks – does not preserve anything, rather it is designed to be an empty place free of former connotations. But plays (especially classics) and actors are the main sources for the preservation and creation of stereotypes. Since theatre directors and actors are also members of the community, where particular stereotypes circulate, they can predict the reception of audiences and are therefore able either to strengthen or deconstruct stereotypes. Consequently, theatrical performances can become rituals of remembering – reproductions of the past, acts of recollection, which are at the same time attempts to impose interpretations on the past and to sculpt the mind, and through this to shape social identity (Burke 2003:48). In this article I will focus on stereotypes as cognitive phenomena for per- ceiving, collecting and memorizing new information, as well as on cultural mechanisms of representation and preservation of collective myths and traditional values. The phenomenology of stereotypes is exposed by studying their formation, petrifaction and decomposition more broadly in culture, and more specifically in theatre. As an empirical example I draw on the Estonian novel Spring by Oskar Luts, and on its interpretation in theatre and film. 2. Formation and function of stereotypes in cultural memory In scientific discourse, stereotype (Greek stereós ‘solid, hard’ + tupos ‘print, figure’) is a term most often used in psychology and sociology. Both social psychologists and cognitive psychologists state that generally people tend to simplify the reality, collecting knowledge rather at the molar level in unifying similarities than handling every single feature in its pure form. Thus the creation and application of complex fixed images, a form of cognitive figure usually defined as stereotypes, is one of the primary means for occupying the world. Stereotypes are mostly not created by an individual person, instead they are passed on from one person, group or generation to another through education and life practice. Thinking in stereotypes has gathered additional strength and functionality in an age where the grand myths and tales about the way the world operates have Stereotypes and cultural memory 311 lost their validity and credibility. Stereotypes have much in common with mythologies: they primarily consider and explain the mystical Other, the strange, be it another nation or gender, the two concepts most closely associated with identifying a person and stereotypical thinking, but more broadly all unfamiliar features. It’s precisely the archetypal nature of stereotypes that makes them rather resilient to various processes of undermining and even to deconstruction. Since figurative thinking is led by automatisms, people turn to stereotypes when short of of time, in complicated situations, in case of contradictory or insufficient information and often just from convenience. As a consequence, thinking in stereotypes is comfortable and secure, as it makes the world and its people seemingly fit into the overall system, and, knowing this, the subject gains control over his or her surroundings. By the same token, the atypical is difficult to generalize and control, because it is not known what is typical in the atypical. Cognitive psychology presents us with many examples of how and why novel or atypical phenomena are frequently neglected as aberrant or unimportant, or are lumped into the same category with known phenomena (Fiske and Taylor 1991:468–470). Consequently, human beings notice and memorise what they already know and remember. For a novel cognitive figure to appear, time and a large amount of empirical material is required. Both in psychological as well as in sociological discourse, the notion of ‘stereotype’ usually carries a markedly negative connotation because it is con- sidered to be a tool of simplifications and mental oppression. But stereotypes also have some positive functions. Stereotypes as cognitive figures help to perceive, code, analyse, memorise and transmit new information faster and more effectively. On the level of personal and collective identity, they define and reinforce the subject’s identity, guarantee an inter-group homogeneity and solidarity, and in the end produce a feeling of security for both the individual and society (Rapport and Overing 2000:346). However, the legitimacy of stereotypes as inherited or created cognitive units needs constant retention and verification, and this is done based on everyday life, social practices, and artistic experience. From early on, art as an ideological institution has participated in the process of constantly shaping and preserving traditions and memories, whereby the remembered past is transformed into myth (i.e. ways by which public memories are transmitted). In what follows, I will narrow down the topic and ask how, why and for what reasons stereotypes are created, used and interpreted in the discourse of arts and cultural memory, using Oskar Luts’s Spring as an empirical case study. 3. Recreation of stereotypes in theatre and film adaptations of Oskar Luts’s Spring The Estonian classic, Spring, by the hugely popular Oskar Luts was written between 1912 and 1913 and depicts life in a turn-of-the-century village school. 312 Anneli Saro Here we have Toots, a prankster with wild fantasies, an inept suck-up Kiir, an introverted, romantically and aesthetically sensitive Arno, a handsome and confident musician Imelik, a slow and straightforward stocky Tõnisson, and the self-centred beauty Teele. The author’s point of view is given through the eyes of Arno – a rather extraordinary bright teenager whose gaze and worldview is veiled by nameless yearning and melancholy. The latter is considered to be one of the main characteristics of atmosphere in Luts’s works and his attitude towards the modern man (Undusk 1987). For a young reader, always optimistic and inventive, though with a distinctive lack of enthusiasm for learning Toots could be a proper role model, also his attention catching actions seem more fascinating than the lyrical reflections of Arno. The most unpleasant character is probably the assiduous Kiir although he does not make a completely negative impression, evoking just pity and laughter. All the main characters in the novel represent different types of individuals, who have become eponymous common nouns for several generations of Estonians over the course of the 20th century. Recalling their days at school, Estonians often describe the Tootses and Kiirs, Tõnissons and Teeles of their class. There are no remarkably strong or significant antagonists to the group of schoolchildren